Headlines

William McGurn

How Obama’s “Life of Julia” prevailed

During the 2012 campaign, we conservatives had great sport at the expense of the Obama administration’s “Life of Julia”—a cartoon explaining the cradle-to-grave government programs that provided for Julia’s happy and successful life.

The president, alas, had the last laugh. For the voting blocs that went so disproportionately for the president’s re-election—notably, Latinos and single women—the Julia view of government clearly resonates. To put it another way, maybe Americans who have reason to feel insecure about their futures don’t find a government that promises to be there for them when they need it all that menacing. …

The conservative is rightly concerned with incentives and the long-term effects of any government program for relief, which are vital concerns for workable policy. The liberal is far less abstract: Here are some food stamps so your children don’t go hungry tonight.

Never mind the long-term costs and consequences of these solutions. Yes, the education loans that supposedly make college “affordable” actually drive its costs up faster than normal inflation. Yes, housing subsidies have saddled people with homes they cannot afford. And, yes, minimum-wage laws price the people who can least afford it out of the job market. The dilemma for those of us who oppose big-government solutions is that the true costs of these “solutions” are seldom clear until it’s too late.

Republicans are going to have to drop the opposition to abortion in instances of rape and incest in the party platform when even their candidates at the top of the ticket won’t support it because it’s a death knell for their candidacy. But alas it’s back to Iowa and Bob VanDerPoop, the “Republican Kingmaker” there with the ready and waiting pledge to sign even though her couldn’t be elected dogcatcher. And Bachmann and Santorum can back track again and explain they “never really read it” when questioned whether black families really were “happiest” under slavery.

Yes, the education loans that supposedly make college “affordable” actually drive its costs up faster than normal inflation. Yes, housing subsidies have saddled people with homes they cannot afford. And, yes, minimum-wage laws price the people who can least afford it out of the job market.

Never mind the long-term costs and consequences of these solutions. Yes, the education loans that supposedly make college “affordable” actually drive its costs up faster than normal inflation. Yes, housing subsidies have saddled people with homes they cannot afford. And, yes, minimum-wage laws price the people who can least afford it out of the job market. The dilemma for those of us who oppose big-government solutions is that the true costs of these “solutions” are seldom clear until it’s too late.

Well that’s the problem right there. We conservatives are zeroed in on the long-term costs and consequences. And the reason is because we’re starting to feel them now. Why do you think our federal government is running trillion-plus dollar deficits every year? Because of all those bridges and roads we’re building? It’s in order to keep these goodies flowing to the likes of “Julia”, we’re now forced to borrow 40 cents of every dollar we spend.

And it’s not like when this entire house of cards collapses, these parasites are gonna suddenly see the light and understand why we were so adamant about fiscal responsibility all these years. They’re gonna be out in the street protesting and rioting like the Greek. Then we’re really up the creek.

Republicans with the limited exception of Gingrich never seriously opposed the welfare state, merely occasionally obstructed tax hikes. So it’s not as if the conservative arguments are even familiar to the wider public.

This wasn’t your caricature “taker”—the woman had a real job. With her partner leaving, however, she could no longer afford the rent, and she would have trouble providing for her two young boys alone. As she walked up to an office to sign up for food stamps, she said something like, “I can’t believe I am applying for public assistance.”

Her situation provoked two questions. First, how could her boyfriend just abandon his sons without having to pay child support? Second, what is the conservative response to a woman who finds herself in this situation?

There are always going to be less than ideal situations (even in my own family). Guys will run off. But how about, if you are going to have kids, make a commitment to each other first, and, dare I say it, get married. Understand the seriousness off what you are about to embark on.

There are no grounds to suggest that by putting the responsibility over to the state, one can achieve better results.

Unreasonable expansion of the budget deficit, accumulation of the national debt – are as destructive as an adventurous stock market game.

During the time of the Soviet Union the role of the state in economy was made absolute, which eventually lead to the total non-competitiveness of the economy. That lesson cost us very dearly. I am sure no one would want history to repeat itself.

We must seek support in the moral values that have ensured the progress of our civilization. Honesty and hard work, responsibility and faith in our strength are bound to bring us success.

V. Putin

I’m stunned that Putin is to the right of Obama. But not really stunned, stunned.

And it’s not like when this entire house of cards collapses, these parasites are gonna suddenly see the light and understand why we were so adamant about fiscal responsibility all these years. They’re gonna be out in the street protesting and rioting like the Greek. Then we’re really up the creek.

“To put it another way, maybe Americans who have reason to feel insecure about their futures don’t find a government that promises to be there for them when they need it all that menacing” Yet the underlying assumption is that they will always “need it” in every single aspect of their lives, cradle to grave. The other side of the coin is that government will always “be there” and it won’t always be “for” you.

The other side of the coin is that government will always “be there” and it won’t always be “for” you.

tommyboy on November 27, 2012 at 9:33 AM

And that is what all these young people — who have been brought up on slogans like “If you dream it, you can become it,” — will find out. That when the government is supporting you, it can tell you what you are going to do and be. They are enslaving themselves to soul-killing mediocrity and uniformity. The 35 to 40 year olds who adore Obama have no idea what they’re setting their kids up for.

One of my nephews sent a link to the family for a petition on a law excusing or forgiving college loans. He is employed, in a decent job (as far as I can tell), with benefits. He has loans $25,000 in excess of his annual salary.

I just got another email of the house he is buying with his girlfriend.

Sorry, kid. I was sure your mom and dad taught you deferred gratification.

A big problem with the narrative of “our children and grandchildren are going to be paying the bill”, is that it is long term and too abstract for many people.

I think at this stage the narrative should be “If you are between the ages of 18 and 60 (or 70,80,take your pick), YOU are going to be paying the bill. By the time the young kids are older, it will have all collapsed by then anyway.

I think the acute pain – which is inevitable – will only make it worse. The banks and the Wall Street types will be blamed, along with the rich white folks.

Everyone else will demand they give up more, and it’ll get really ugly really quickly.

Washington Nearsider on November 27, 2012 at 9:41 AM

Exactly! Republicans, capitalists, business owners, conservatives, etc. will always be the scapegoats. The 47% (and growing) will never accept that their heroes (or themselves) are to blame for anything.

I think the acute pain – which is inevitable – will only make it worse. The banks and the Wall Street types will be blamed, along with the rich white folks.

Everyone else will demand they give up more, and it’ll get really ugly really quickly.

Washington Nearsider on November 27, 2012 at 9:41 AM

Count me in on that. America is not suddenly going to come to reality when the money runs out. The 50% will still want ‘theirs’ and will throw an adult-sized temper tantrum when they aren’t given it.

Reality, for them, will only hit when they’re starving in their unlit cold apartments and there’s no more supermarkets to loot. Or when they’ve been marched off in chains to perform hard labor for the rest of their natural lives and their illegitimate children raised by someone else.

Might be interesting when things really go to crap, and someone goes out and snips the power lines running to a bankrupt blue state. Then “acute pain” will take on a whole new meaning.

GWB on November 27, 2012 at 11:23 AM

If red states are serious about splitting, the movers and shakers in them should start some (very quiet) talks with the companies that run infrastructure in and to blue states, minus of course the Demoncrat union-shop ones.

Imagine if everything in a blue state but police/fire stations, hospitals, and military bases suddenly lost all external power and utilities. Could give the red states a hell of an advantage.

Any reason, ANY REASON at all that does not lay one iota of blame on Romney for his failure. ANY REASON except Romney was doomed for no other reason than he was too progressive to win the Republican vote in the general.